Really? Why isn't Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush winning? Hell Lindsey Graham should be leading the polls by now. They are all saying the same thing and the guy leading the polls is less hawkish than his competitors. I'll give you a hint since your head is buried so deep in the sand. Look at who gets the most media attention... I know, I know it's difficult to understand.
It's time for Rand Paul to unleash Ron Paul
- Thread starter twomp
- Start date
Really? Why isn't Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush winning? Hell Lindsey Graham should be leading the polls by now. They are all saying the same thing and the guy leading the polls is less hawkish than his competitors. I'll give you a hint since your head is buried so deep in the sand. Look at who gets the most media attention... I know, I know it's difficult to understand.
Hi, Ron Paul was polling great head to head against Obama in 2012 too! History is difficult I know. Actually I bet if Ron Paul were running, he would be ahead of Rand Paul in the polls too!
An RCP average of 3 in IA is not great, it's not even good.
There is no polling against Hillary anymore. The pollsters only poll the top candidates against Hillary.
Nobody has voted yet but have you been watching the polls. The neoconservatives are divided up right now but Rubio has moved to third place and he in more hawkish than just about any of them. Trump was on his way down until the terror attack in france and he said he would bomb the "shit outta them". Carson went down after he seemed weak on foreign policy.
Last edited:
Krugminator2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2014
- Messages
- 4,568
Given that he would still have Trump, Carson, Cruz, and Bernie Sanders pulling from his voter pool, he would probably be in the 5-6% range a vs the 10% he got with no Democratic candidates and Michele Bachman as the only anti-establishment candidate.
If you consider a few percentage points better than Rand a helluva better, then I guess that is true. He would certainly have more enthusiasm and better fundraising.
Possible but still headed for colossal defeat like his other three runs. It is not about who polls higher it is about who wins. Ron had proved without a doubt with three runs his way was UNWINABLE. Rand tried something else and it maybe will be even a less winnable strategy but he knew Ron's way was sure failure so he gave his way a try.
Last edited:
r3volution 3.0
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 18,553
Sure, if Rand had aped Ron, he would be higher in the polls, perhaps 10%.
But that would be a ceiling.
One can garner some attention by being the radical anti-war guy, or radical anti-NSA guy, or whatever, but one does not win the election that way.
Moderating risks losing the base, but it is also the only way to expand it.
If Rand loses, it doesn't invalidate the idea of moderating in order to expand the base - it just means he went about it the wrong way (or this was just the wrong cycle).
Put another way:
Run Ron Paul every cycle and get 10% consistently.
Run Rand Paul every cycle, get 2% one time and 50% another time.
No risk, no reward...kind of deal.
Pretty accurate analysis.
LatinsforPaul
Member
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2010
- Messages
- 1,646
If you believe Rand is at 3% in Iowa like the polls say, well I got a couple of bridges to sell you. All these discussions will end on Feb. 1, one way or the other. My money is on Rand's ground game in Iowa which even though many don't believe it here, it's actually much better than Ron's in 2011.
Last edited:
Anti-Neocon
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2012
- Messages
- 2,223
Do you think he can make the next debate off Iowa or NH?
CaptainAmerica
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 6,468
............
Matt Collins
Member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2007
- Messages
- 47,707
RCP average means nothing. All of the polling methodologies are different. Polling Iowa is a very specialized thing, and not everyone knows how to do it properly.
dusman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,376
I prefer an anti-war stance as much as anyone here when there is a clear environment that allows for one, like in 2012. Ron's last run was a perfect time to run an anti-war campaign. The country was war-weary, the objectives in the Middle East were entirely undefinable, and the anti-war contingent that raised up against Bush persisted and some put their support behind Paul. Unfortunately, even the Iran threat crippled much of Ron's ability to expand his support in 2012.
Fear is a blind motivator and when we have refugees coming into the country that the GOP perceives as threats like those who carried out the Paris attacks, the expectation of the President to respond aggressively is a huge priority for them after Bush. This is an entirely different kind of fear than Iran in 2012. This is the kind of fear where you have voters going to the store or to the airport and seeing a Middle Eastern man and the hairs on the back of their neck stand up. The GOP is paralyzed with this fear and they look at Obama as having created an environment to bring it to our door by withdrawing from Iraq and not continuing the foreign policy of Bush. It's really unfortunate.
Ron would have done terrible in this environment. Add that with the very real difference of having Trump, Carson, Rubio, and Cruz in the race... compared to Romney, Newt, and who else? Santorum? This is a bigger field, with candidates who aren't as polarized to Ron as before.
Fear is a blind motivator and when we have refugees coming into the country that the GOP perceives as threats like those who carried out the Paris attacks, the expectation of the President to respond aggressively is a huge priority for them after Bush. This is an entirely different kind of fear than Iran in 2012. This is the kind of fear where you have voters going to the store or to the airport and seeing a Middle Eastern man and the hairs on the back of their neck stand up. The GOP is paralyzed with this fear and they look at Obama as having created an environment to bring it to our door by withdrawing from Iraq and not continuing the foreign policy of Bush. It's really unfortunate.
Ron would have done terrible in this environment. Add that with the very real difference of having Trump, Carson, Rubio, and Cruz in the race... compared to Romney, Newt, and who else? Santorum? This is a bigger field, with candidates who aren't as polarized to Ron as before.
Last edited:
dusman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,376
[I thought I should break these up into two posts.]
I think Rand's positioning on the issues has been quite excellent in light of the situation. However, either Rand resisted against solid advice on how to brand it or his advisers are very weak in knowing how to brand it, penetrate the market with it, and build a campaign around it. I lean toward the latter and I mean no disrespect to Chip, but I'm just not confident in his skillset to carry a presidential campaign. I see a lot of arbitrary mistakes that add up to that conclusion and a lot of missed opportunities.
If this were like marketing a product... Rand's positioning is right, but the differentiation and unique value propositions are severely lacking. Rand is Big K Cola and he needs to be Pepsi.
McCain faced a similar situation in 2008. Do you know what he did? He forced his top advisers and campaign manager out and replaced them with people better suited to package McCain's message. Thing's turned around in a month or so for him. At the end of October I suggested that if things don't start turning by end of November, Rand needs to do the same. This needs to be followed up with an entire rebranding top down, all the way to that terrible slogan too.
That will generate press. That will show voters Rand can take command of his own ship and right it. That will get some fresh faces and a fresh approach on the table which could turn this entire thing around. The beauty is Rand doesn't even need to change what he's saying... just how he says it and how the campaign magnifies it.
I think Rand's positioning on the issues has been quite excellent in light of the situation. However, either Rand resisted against solid advice on how to brand it or his advisers are very weak in knowing how to brand it, penetrate the market with it, and build a campaign around it. I lean toward the latter and I mean no disrespect to Chip, but I'm just not confident in his skillset to carry a presidential campaign. I see a lot of arbitrary mistakes that add up to that conclusion and a lot of missed opportunities.
If this were like marketing a product... Rand's positioning is right, but the differentiation and unique value propositions are severely lacking. Rand is Big K Cola and he needs to be Pepsi.
McCain faced a similar situation in 2008. Do you know what he did? He forced his top advisers and campaign manager out and replaced them with people better suited to package McCain's message. Thing's turned around in a month or so for him. At the end of October I suggested that if things don't start turning by end of November, Rand needs to do the same. This needs to be followed up with an entire rebranding top down, all the way to that terrible slogan too.
That will generate press. That will show voters Rand can take command of his own ship and right it. That will get some fresh faces and a fresh approach on the table which could turn this entire thing around. The beauty is Rand doesn't even need to change what he's saying... just how he says it and how the campaign magnifies it.
statist slayer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 228
Agree 100% with the analysis that Rand needs a rebranding, but there are some unalterable personal characteristics of Rand himself that prevent him from breaking through. Basically, he can't give a stemwinder.
I think the most important thing that we can do is get out more Internet videos that compensate for Rand's awful campaign media. The first Rand Is Right video is pretty good and should be promoted by us more on social media groups. But we need a series of these videos in the hope that one catches fire, as Mike Lee's post about Rand's stand against the CR did last month. I suggested another video idea on Syria in the Rand Is Right thread.
I think the most important thing that we can do is get out more Internet videos that compensate for Rand's awful campaign media. The first Rand Is Right video is pretty good and should be promoted by us more on social media groups. But we need a series of these videos in the hope that one catches fire, as Mike Lee's post about Rand's stand against the CR did last month. I suggested another video idea on Syria in the Rand Is Right thread.
dusman
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2011
- Messages
- 2,376
If a horrid bore like McCain can rebrand successfully after singing "Bomb, Bomb, Iran" .. I am confident Rand will have no problem doing so.
If Rand is serious.. he's going to need to make some changes in the circle I think. I agree, we should work on more media. I've been toying around with a video, around the idea of a "new GOP" that has potential.. just not sure yet how to best present it.
statist slayer
Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2015
- Messages
- 228
Sometimes I wonder, considering that none of his campaign swag has ever had the year "2016" on it.
r3volution 3.0
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2014
- Messages
- 18,553
If I knew that, I'd be living in Georgetown pulling $150k per year.
What did Romney do differently between 08 and 12?
Do you remember...well...anything about his campaigns? ...I don't. Yet obviously something was different.
...it's the little things, you see, and the luck of the draw re world events, that determine the outcome.
Trial and error, patience.
Similar threads
